Here it is: House GOP releases its “Standards for Immigration Reform”

posted at 5:10 pm on January 30, 2014 by Allahpundit

Behold the long-awaited “statement of principles,” hot off the presses at today’s House Republican retreat. There are no surprises, or at least not yet: The statement’s so light on specifics, especially in the crucial final sentence, that it’s impossible to guess how bad the final deal might be.

Although if you guess “pretty bad,” you’re almost certainly on safe ground.

Standards for Immigration Reform

PREAMBLEOur nation’s immigration system is broken and our laws are not being enforced. Washington’s failure to fix them is hurting our economy and jeopardizing our national security. The overriding purpose of our immigration system is to promote and further America’s national interests and that is not the case today. The serious problems in our immigration system must be solved, and we are committed to working in a bipartisan manner to solve them. But they cannot be solved with a single, massive piece of legislation that few have read and even fewer understand, and therefore, we will not go to a conference with the Senate’s immigration bill. The problems in our immigration system must be solved through a step-by-step, common-sense approach that starts with securing our country’s borders, enforcing our laws, and implementing robust enforcement measures. These are the principals guiding us in that effort.

Border Security and Interior Enforcement Must Come First
It is the fundamental duty of any government to secure its borders, and the United States is failing in this mission. We must secure our borders now and verify that they are secure. In addition, we must ensure now that when immigration reform is enacted, there will be a zero tolerance policy for those who cross the border illegally or overstay their visas in the future. Faced with a consistent pattern of administrations of both parties only selectively enforcing our nation’s immigration laws, we must enact reform that ensures that a President cannot unilaterally stop immigration enforcement.

Implement Entry-Exit Visa Tracking System
A fully functioning Entry-Exit system has been mandated by eight separate statutes over the last 17 years. At least three of these laws call for this system to be biometric, using technology to verify identity and prevent fraud. We must implement this system so we can identify and track down visitors who abuse our laws.

Employment Verification and Workplace Enforcement
In the 21st century it is unacceptable that the majority of employees have their work eligibility verified through a paper based system wrought with fraud. It is past time for this country to fully implement a workable electronic employment verification system.

Reforms to the Legal Immigration System
For far too long, the United States has emphasized extended family members and pure luck over employment-based immigration. This is inconsistent with nearly every other developed country. Every year thousands of foreign nationals pursue degrees at America’s colleges and universities, particularly in high skilled fields. Many of them want to use their expertise in U.S. industries that will spur economic growth and create jobs for Americans. When visas aren’t available, we end up exporting this labor and ingenuity to other countries. Visa and green card allocations need to reflect the needs of employers and the desire for these exceptional individuals to help grow our economy.

The goal of any temporary worker program should be to address the economic needs of the country and to strengthen our national security by allowing for realistic, enforceable, usable, legal paths for entry into the United States. Of particular concern are the needs of the agricultural industry, among others. It is imperative that these temporary workers are able to meet the economic needs of the country and do not displace or disadvantage American workers.

Youth
One of the great founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents. It is time to provide an opportunity for legal residence and citizenship for those who were brought to this country as children through no fault of their own, those who know no other place as home. For those who meet certain eligibility standards, and serve honorably in our military or attain a college degree, we will do just that.

Individuals Living Outside the Rule of Law
Our national and economic security depend on requiring people who are living and working here illegally to come forward and get right with the law. There will be no special path to citizenship for individuals who broke our nation’s immigration laws – that would be unfair to those immigrants who have played by the rules and harmful to promoting the rule of law. Rather, these persons could live legally and without fear in the U.S., but only if they were willing to admit their culpability, pass rigorous background checks, pay significant fines and back taxes, develop proficiency in English and American civics, and be able to support themselves and their families (without access to public benefits). Criminal aliens, gang members, and sex offenders and those who do not meet the above requirements will not be eligible for this program. Finally, none of this can happen before specific enforcement triggers have been implemented to fulfill our promise to the American people that from here on, our immigration laws will indeed be enforced.

As expected, per the “Youth” section, there’ll be a special path to citizenship for DREAMers but not for adult illegals. As for the final line, what sort of enforcement triggers are we talking about here? “No legalization until there’s been a measurable 50 percent drop in illegal immigration over five years” would be a trigger worth considering. “No legalization until DHS submits a border-security plan,” which is basically what the Gang of Eight prescribed, wouldn’t be. There’s a lot of devil in these details.

Sean Trende of RealClearPolitics started tweeting in total mystification after the statement was released as to why the GOP would be pushing amnesty now, of all moments. If they were dead set on doing this before the midterms, he reasoned, why not do it last year, to give conservative anger more time to cool before the big vote? Failing that, why not wait until next year, after the midterms, since no one expects the Latino vote to be decisive this fall? I have no answers to the first question but you know my answer to the second. I think Boehner’s afraid that if they wait another year, until the GOP holds the Senate as well, conservative expectations for a “tough” Republican-written law will be so high that the backlash when they fail to come through will be even more bitter than it’ll be if they do it this year. In fact, as another Twitter buddy speculated, it may be that Boehner expects so many more tea partiers in the House and Senate next year that he feels he has to act now, before they’re seated. If he waits, tea partiers might be strong enough in 2015 to block the sort of bill that his friends in the Chamber of Commerce want written. When push comes to shove, he, Ryan, and the rest of the leadership think conservative/independent anger over ObamaCare will wash away all of their sins come November, including a mortal sin on immigration. Even if they sell you out on this, they figure, you’ll still go to the polls to rebuke Obama for the millions of cancellations and higher premiums that his pet boondoggle has stuck America with. And honestly? I’m not sure they’re wrong.

Update: Good catch by Greg Sargent. There’s no special path to citizenship here for adult illegals, but neither is there anything that would preclude them for applying for green cards and citizenship later on through existing channels. In fact, Paul Ryan signaled yesterday that they would be able to apply. Go figure that the leadership didn’t want to highlight that footnote in their statement.

Update: A detail from immigration discussions at the GOP retreat. I’ll bet:

In the room in Cambridge: Rep says a "lot of frustration" about "why now?"

Comments

I have voted in every election — primaries, special elections, off-year, presidential — since I was first eligible a couple of decades ago (give or take).

I will close my checkbook and stay home in November if they do this. Every conservative I talk to similarly says this would be the final straw. If they are prepared to sell us out on everything — defunding, debt ceiling, continuing resolutions, and now this — if they are not willing to do everything in their power to stop the lawlessness, if they are willing to act like Democrats, if they are willing to lie — as Ryan did on MSNBC, as Rubio did last spring and summer, I can see no reason to prefer them to Pelosi. ((see above)

If we don’t allow the illegal workers who are here to keep their jobs with “probationary legalization” won’t that cause the businesses that rely on them to go broke? Is that what we want?

kcewa on January 31, 2014 at 8:30 AM

It won’t make any businesses that are sound go broke. Businesses that are dependent on illegal labor might have some problems until they adjust to paying the new, higher, legal cost of labor. Some won’t be able to adjust because their business model was based on being able to undercut competition by paying less than the market rate for labor.

That is unfortunate, but it is unavoidable unless you like markets where labor is kept artificially low.

If conservatives withdraw their support from the GOP in 2014 and the GOP is routed, the Democrats will likely pull a gun bill out of their butts that many won’t like one bit. In that case the stage would be set for a real game-changer in 2016. We could actually win in a meaningful way.

If conservatives withdraw their support from the GOP in 2014 and the GOP is routed, the Democrats will likely pull a gun bill out of their butts that many won’t like one bit. In that case the stage would be set for a real game-changer in 2016. We could actually win in a meaningful way.

claudius on January 31, 2014 at 8:44 AM

Not only that, but a withdrawal of conservative support in 2014 will likely force the GOP to move right and give up its insane aspirations to be the exact same as the DNC.

At the end of the day, these people want to win elections and have power. They will do what is necessary to do that. They know they cannot win a race to be more leftist with the DNC, so they will have to come to the reality that they can only win by not doing the opposite of what they say they will do vis a vis conservatism.

And, before the usual suspects start claiming that is unrealistic “truecon” talk – I’m not talking about eliminating most of the gov’t and cutting all entitlements. I’m talking about the GOP actually acting in line with its fundraising and campaigning rhetoric, where it claims to be a) against amnesty; b) for cutting spending; and c) for reducing the size/scope of gov’t.

It is a bit saddening to read all of the rage at the GOP here and realize nothing similar is happening over on the Democrat side.

Who should be most outraged by this effort to bring in endless millions more workers, thereby effectively flooding the labor market with excess supply and driving down the cost of honest labor in the United States?

It used to be the Democrats. What has happened to them?

The Democrat leaders have become completely predatory, and the fools voting for them have become dumber than sheep.

It should be the Democratic Party that is tearing itself apart now, but the typical Democrat voter is so stupid they’re just standing there while their politicians are pissing on them and telling them it’s raining.

President Reagan would have ever agreed to amnesty had he not felt in his heart it was the right thing to do.

mike_NC9 on January 30, 2014 at 10:32 PM

Reagan “believed” per existing information available to him at that time that there were “approximately 100,000 illegal aliens” about whom his amnesty would apply.

He also issued enforcement requirements to that amnesty for those “100,000” and declared that his amnesty would be the one and only, last ever, never to be repeated. Do it then be done with the idea, not ever to recur.

Instead of those 100,000, several million showed up. Most of them provided forged documents to “prove” they were eligible and even the govt. under Reagan was aware that the documents were forged but declared they couldn’t for various reasons wade throught the problem so they’d ‘just accept everyone who applied’ regardless of forgery or not, with the expectation (a rosy, optimistic outlook persisted however unrealistically) that “the illegal alien problem” would just cease after they got through all these applications.

IT WAS NAIVE and Reagan later admitted he’d been taken severe advantage of. No enforcement was upheld, forgeries flourished, people from all over the globe poured in with a variety of flimsly claims, applied for amnesty, were granted citizenship, it continued…

…Reagan’s amnesty, so it is called now, created the burgeoning forgery business in the US and at that time, Los Angeles was the author of this crime wave. Buy forged paperwork on a variety of city street corners in broad daylight…then it spread nationwide to Miami, Puerto Rico, on and on, forgeries to base false claims for amnesty on.

Millions from around the globe seized on this “Reagan amnesty” process and the 100,000 or so Reagan had expected to apply became many millions. AND this episode spawned the ethnic-supremacy movements that then continued on to claim that, “since Reagan had agreed to amnesty,” that that meant that it was a righteous act regardless of how it was done.

Many harms were fostered by that amnesty. Ed Meese admitted as much later. And any citizen paying attention was well aware of the gullibility of Reagan and associates in that process. Not a denigration of Reagan but about this issue, he was entirely gullible.

Each time we appear to be gaining ground electorally and seem to finally be moving towards some cohesion on the major issues, this “leadership” throws it away by pushing secondary issues which divide us within the party and defy the majority opinion of our citizens. For the Republican leaderships clarification- that would be holistically what we call voters.

If you want to know why people are so disenchanted with this leadership and constantly call for their removal, look no further than this issue. To continue misguidedly pushing issues that work contrary to the party and public good is a sign you are either incompetent or honestly don’t care what people think.

There is nobody left to fight for the citizens of our country left in Washington. Just a bunch of self absorbed oligarchs and lobbyists whispering into each others ears.

It won’t make any businesses that are sound go broke. Businesses that are dependent on illegal labor might have some problems until they adjust to paying the new, higher, legal cost of labor. Some won’t be able to adjust because their business model was based on being able to undercut competition by paying less than the market rate for labor.

That is unfortunate, but it is unavoidable unless you like markets where labor is kept artificially low.

fadetogray on January 31, 2014 at 8:43 AM

Except, the same exact forces that led to the current illegals being here will cause millions more to come and be employed.

Legalizing the current illegals doesn’t accomplish anything. It does not make the border more secure, it does not create any disincentive for the reduction of illegal immigration (it in fact does the opposite – creating an enormouse incentive for a huge rush of new illegal immigrants).

As we have learned in the past, any promises of more enforcement are hogwash and won’t come to fruition.

Which is why it is imperative that any strengthened enforcement of the border AND immigration laws (particular employment laws) happen for a number of year BEFORE any discussion on the status of the current illegals.

The idea that legalizing the status of the current illegals makes any rational sense from any perspective is completely batshit insane. It doesn’t make economic sense, it doesn’t make sense in terms of reducing downward pressure on wages, it doesn’t make sense in terms of “reforming” our immigration system, it doesn’t make sense as political strategy for the GOP (the dream of winning Hispanic voters through an amnesty is delusional at best), it doesn’t make sense in terms of anything.

There is no logical reason for legalizing the illegals. And nobody has ever even attempted to make one. Instead, we are told a) we are racist for opposing amnesty; and b) “America was built on immigration”.

Neither of those are arguments for amnesty. They are pablum at best and idiocy at worst.

There’s a link at the end of that article to the Sessions’ Memo (thirty pages so be prepared).

Numbersusa.com has an interesting newsletter about their ongoing and recent visits to various Republicans’ offices, to express opposition to this Gang Of Eight/Boehner/Ryan et al. amnesty plan.

And some of those visits as Numbersusa.com reports them were met with support by some of the Republicans (Missouri, Virginia, Maryland of all places, among those not enthusiastic about the Boehner plan).

There is no logical reason for legalizing the illegals. And nobody has ever even attempted to make one. Instead, we are told a) we are racist for opposing amnesty; and b) “America was built on immigration”.

The logical reason:

1. Forcing them from their jobs will create a massive disruption in certain industries. They may be replaced by legal immigrants but that will take time and the same people that are arguing against legalization will argue against legal immigration – that’s why illegal immigration has occurred and why it’s been winked at.

And honestly, I believe the game Republican leadership and Mr. Ryan are playing here is that all politics are local.

They see how local senate races are shaping up and truly believe many of those are already won. By the way, this is the same failed strategy Republican leadership and the incomprehensible Reince Priebus have used for the last few elections.

Every single time leadership has made a move that suppresses Republican turnout and we lose. Such repeated foolishness is mind boggling.

It is bad enough we have people such as Boehner and McConnell using Chuck Schumer’s “extreme” label against people in our party who don’t happen to agree with them. But is would serve both of them well to look in the mirror. Because the so-called “opposition” within the party is becoming a majority. Especially when you count people who would rather sit home than vote.

The idea that legalizing the status of the current illegals makes any rational sense from any perspective is completely batshit insane. It doesn’t make economic sense, it doesn’t make sense in terms of reducing downward pressure on wages, it doesn’t make sense in terms of “reforming” our immigration system, it doesn’t make sense as political strategy for the GOP (the dream of winning Hispanic voters through an amnesty is delusional at best), it doesn’t make sense in terms of anything.

There is no logical reason for legalizing the illegals. And nobody has ever even attempted to make one. Instead, we are told a) we are racist for opposing amnesty; and b) “America was built on immigration”.

Neither of those are arguments for amnesty. They are pablum at best and idiocy at worst.

Monkeytoe on January 31, 2014 at 9:05 AM

This has been my complaint for years about this problem by politicians and activists who demand amnesty yet have nothing but a variety of “feeling” based reasons for doing so, which they wrap-up in a variety of attacks on those who oppose them.

There is yet to be made any credible basis for amnesty and ongoing refusal to enforce our laws. Other than political “feelings” that some want another place here where the USA, in their minds, should not be.

It’s a political issue. I’ve yet to ever see anything in the Constitution that supports those politics, however. Nor hear any amnesty-promoter reference the Constitution to support their “needs”.

David M. Drucker [email protected] 2h
Source: By end of House GOP retreat #immigration breakout session, members that spoke were about 65/35 against.

TxAnn56 on January 30, 2014 at 8:15 PM

Hmmm….

Like I wrote earlier in comments, Numbersusa.com sent out a newsletter (which copy of mine I’ve since deleted, sorry, but their site allows subscription if interested) about their visits to several Republican Senate and House offices with their opposition to this Boehner/Ryan, et al amnesty plan and there ARE Republicans who oppose it per what I read earlier in that newsletter copy.

PREAMBLE
The problems in our immigration system must be solved through a step-by-step, common-sense approach that starts with securing our country’s borders, enforcing our laws, and implementing robust enforcement measures. These are the principals guiding us in that effort.

Border Security and Interior Enforcement Must Come First

Implement Entry-Exit Visa Tracking System

Employment Verification and Workplace Enforcement

Reforms to the Legal Immigration System

And eVerify isn’t as good as they would like to make you believe. Over 50% of illegals make it through to work who shouldn’t. This is the definition of insanity.

1. Forcing them from their jobs will create a massive disruption in certain industries. They may be replaced by legal immigrants but that will take time and the same people that are arguing against legalization will argue against legal immigration – that’s why illegal immigration has occurred and why it’s been winked at.

kcewa on January 31, 2014 at 9:12 AM

1 – it is a straw-man to argue that those opposing amnesty will oppose increased legal immigration. There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim.

2 – So, your “logical” argument for amnesty is to reward businesses who have knowingly hired illegal immigrants? That’s the best you have? Really?

3 – forcing current illegals from their jobs won’t happen anywhere near overnight. So that “the system will collapse” argument is total b.s. anyway. As you pro=amnesty types have pointed out relentlessly (in your straw-man arguments), we cannot “round up” all the illegals. Enforcing the immigration laws will take years. So, those businesses engaging in illegal behavior by hiring illegal immigrants will have plenty of time to convert to legal employees without the kind of shock you dishonestly claim will happen.

4 – this silly argument beings with the asinine presumption that these 10-20 million illegals are working at minimum wage and above in industries where there are no possible U.S. employees. If they are making decent wages and their wages won’t be increased by legalization, then there are plenty of unemployed legal workers who could fill those slots. The reality is the illegals are working at below miminum wage – are not receiving overtime pay, and are not receiving the various statutory benefits they will be entitled to once legalized. So, despite your best efforts at a “logical” argument, the truth is that the shock to these employers will be that the newly legalized immigrants will suddenly be more expensive – meaning that these employers will simply turn to the next wave of illegals.

Boehner and other establishment Reps really do think that they will get the Latino vote with amnesty and then they can finally ignore/replace the Conservatives. That is how disconnected from reality they are.

My prediction, the Dems will get pure amnsety thru conference and the GOP Est. will cry about being tricked (while secretly cheering).

1. Forcing them from their jobs will create a massive disruption in certain industries. They may be replaced by legal immigrants but that will take time and the same people that are arguing against legalization will argue against legal immigration – that’s why illegal immigration has occurred and why it’s been winked at.

kcewa on January 31, 2014 at 9:12 AM

And finally, even if your argument were true (it isn’t), it is only an argument for maintaining the status quo – it is not an argument for amnesty.

If you can’t discuss an issue without using that type of language you should re-think your position.

kcewa on January 31, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Asinine means extremely foolish or stupid. So – I stand by it.

You are the one being completely dishonest. I ask you – as I ask all leftists – why do you support a position for which you must lie to argue in favor of? If you can’t be honest, don’t you realize you are wrong?

There is no logical reason for an amnesty. I’ve yet to hear a fact based logical argument. As I demonstrated above, stating that “the companies that employ illegals will go out of business” is neither fact based or logical.

If by chance the announcement of these new found GOP “principles” remains merely a way for the GOP to say they’re “making progress” and “working on it”…and continue as they have to blame Obama’s lawlessness as the reason they just can’t get this done…perhaps everyone on both sides of the issue stays on for the ride?
But if Boehner takes one step off that tightrope he’s walking… it’s not going to be pretty.

If by chance the announcement of these new found GOP “principles” remains merely a way for the GOP to say they’re “making progress” and “working on it”…and continue as they have to blame Obama’s lawlessness as the reason they just can’t get this done…perhaps everyone on both sides of the issue stays on for the ride?

lynncgb on January 31, 2014 at 9:50 AM

Too much wishful thinking there. First, the GOP has been pretty consistent in pushing for amnesty – so it is unlikely that this is simply a ruse. Also, the GOP has never been smart enough to pull off (or even attempt) a ruse like this before.

1. Forcing them from their jobs will create a massive disruption in certain industries. They may be replaced by legal immigrants but that will take time and the same people that are arguing against legalization will argue against legal immigration – that’s why illegal immigration has occurred and why it’s been winked at.

kcewa on January 31, 2014 at 9:12 AM

Hopefully they’ll be replaced by the millions of legal citizens who have been out of work so long, they aren’t even considered in the unemployment figures anymore. However, I do argue against our current level of legal immigration, but before I discuss that issue with you I’d like you to tell me how many legal immigrants we allow in each year, and then tell me what other nation in the world allows in more.

Schumer helped write they 1986 legislation too, and then got the IRS to not enforce getting back-taxes from the new amnestied individuals.

As Vitter correctly states, the IRCA amnesty was immediate, but enforcement came later, and the same legislators and political groups who had insisted on amnesty as a trade-off for enforcement began immediately to undermine the enforcement provisions. For example, within a few years Massachusetts Democrat Sen. Ted Kennedy was spearheading an effort to repeal the employer sanctions, an effort that came to a halt only after Corretta Scott King, on behalf of the Black Leadership Forum, published a letter in opposition.

Proponents of the 1986 amnesty frequently referred to illegal aliens as “undocumented taxpayers” on the grounds that their employers were withholding taxes that paid for government benefits, such as a Social Security pension, that most would never receive. The premise was implicitly endorsed by the House Judiciary Committee, whose report on IRCA stated that the “undocumented alien population” had “contributed to the United States in myriad ways, including providing their labor and tax dollars.” (Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. 97-890 (Part 1), at 35. Emphasis added.)

…

On January 28, 1987, then-Rep. Schumer wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury, urging the government “immediately” to issue a regulation declaring that illegal aliens applying for permanent residence pursuant to IRCA were exempt from section 6039E. Schumer argued that Congress “did not intend” that illegal aliens amnestied by IRCA would be subject to the tax disclosure requirements that Congress had enacted two weeks earlier. According to Schumer: “Obviously, we could not have a successful legalization program if by submitting an application an alien became vulnerable to an enforcement action by the IRS.”

They may be replaced by citizenslegal immigrants but that will take time and the same people that are arguing against legalization will argue against legal immigration – that’s why illegal immigration has occurred and why it’s been winked at.

kcewa on January 31, 2014 at 9:12 AM

…by the way, the enforcement mechanism is the use of E-Verify and enforcement of existing immigration law.

And, if you give the so-called “Dreamers” amnesty, do you kick out their parents or let them stay also.

Amnesty encourages more illegal entry into the country. This not so called illegal “immigration,” but illegal entry into the country. Wake Up, America, or you’ll become the Northern States of Mexico. For example, I often cannot successfuly order a cup of black coffee in a downtown Chicago McDonald’s because the clerk doesn’t understand my Midwest Standard accent.

And, as a reminder, Amnesty worked really well for Reagan and the Republicans when they passed it, didn’t it.

However, I do argue against our current level of legal immigration, but before I discuss that issue with you I’d like you to tell me how many legal immigrants we allow in each year, and then tell me what other nation in the world allows in more.

DFCtomm on January 31, 2014 at 9:56 AM

We’re not “any other nation in the world”. Our economy has always relied on low wage immigrants, whether from Europe or elsewhere. We need a policy that works for us and our economy.

I think we need to recognize the fact of economic migration. So far our policy has been to restrict that in name and ignore it in practice. Which is why we have so many illegals. Refusing to recognize economic reality isn’t conservative – that road usually leads to Statist solutions and failure.

I agree BTW that this is poor timing – there’s no reason to address this now. And we should reform our legal immigration policy first.

My guess is that a lot of conservatives feel as I do, that I would not be completely opposed to allowing some type of legalization of illegal aliens – but only AFTER we have spent a number of years strengthening border enforcement, reforming our current immigration system (which does not require doing anything with the current illegals), and enforcing immigration laws (for instance getting rid of sanctuary cities, having police check immigration status and detain for deportation illegals, having public schools check immigration status, penalizing severely businesses knowingly hiring illegals, and speeding up the entire deportation process).

After 5-10 years of doing that, the inflow of illegals will be reduced significantly due to both strengthened border enforcement and less incentive to be here, and the remaining number of illegals in the U.S. would be reduced by both enforcement an self-deportation.

At that point, we could have a rational discussion on providing some form of legal status to those that still remained (and were self-sufficient – employed, etc.).

If the GOP had pursued this under W, we would be at this point now. But they refused to. Which indicates that they have no real intention of any border security (which never happened despite promises) and less intention of enforcing immigration laws.

We have no reason to trust an “deal” and every reason to distrust any “deal” that trades legalization for enforcement.

I know that there are a lot of conservatives that are against any amnesty on principal alone (i.e., don’t reward the law breakers) – but I think there are a lot like me, who are against it simply because it is terrible, terrible policy hat will have bad consequences for the U.S. You can significantly reduce or even eliminate the bad consequences by following the path outlined above, but there is no will to do so because the political class does not want any type of enforcement – only amnesty.

Too much wishful thinking there. First, the GOP has been pretty consistent in pushing for amnesty – so it is unlikely that this is simply a ruse. Also, the GOP has never been smart enough to pull off (or even attempt) a ruse like this before.

Monkeytoe on January 31, 2014 at 9:54 AM

Yeah, I know there’s some wishful thinking involved on my part, but this could be how they push the issue past the mid-terms for now.
They would no doubt bring it back up before 2016, but they should be able to draft much stronger legislation if they take the Senate this year… which just might get the support of more conservatives.
Okay, I’ll take off the rose-colored glasses now.

In the attached pic of Boehner and Ryan, I’m reminded of the adage, “a picture is worth a thousand words.”
The smug, arrogance of Ryan is a painful reminder of BHO! He has turned, like Boehner, into a Beltway hack whose principles were checked at the door after 2012! Boehner did this after the 1994 victory engineered by Gingrich!

Quite seriously, I don’t know who or what it is that Dick Schumer is motivated by other than insanity. He’s just said that he sees no basis that hinders Holder from “doing a great job,” for example. Is there anything Schumer “sees” that is rooted in reality? He, among others in Congress, act as enemies of this nation.

We’re not “any other nation in the world”. Our economy has always relied on low wage immigrants, whether from Europe or elsewhere. We need a policy that works for us and our economy.

I think we need to recognize the fact of economic migration. So far our policy has been to restrict that in name and ignore it in practice. Which is why we have so many illegals. Refusing to recognize economic reality isn’t conservative – that road usually leads to Statist solutions and failure.

kcewa on January 31, 2014 at 10:17 AM

Again, dishonest straw-man. Most western nations rely just as much on low-wage immigration. So the U.S. is not unique in that regard. Regardless, we relied on low-wage immigration in times when we were no as socialist with all the entitlement programs and costs. There is a huge difference between allowing tons of immigration in 1900 when the gov’t wasn’t expected to and did not provide for the basic need of the immigrants and today. It is dishonest to compare those migrations with todays.

Regardless, your argument is totally dishonest because it pretends we are arguing about legal immigration. If the U.S. needs higher legal immigration, that is fine – make that case. Nobody is making that case and that is not what we are arguing about. It is dishonest – once again – to pretend we are arguing over the merits of increased legal immigration. We are not.

One again I say – can you make a rational argument in favor of amnesty that does not depend on dishonesty?

Nobody here discounts economic migration. To the extent the U.S. needs low-skilled, uneducated laborers to supplement its workforce, argue for changing the immigration rules. We can increase legal immigrate to meet those needs. That is not what this argument is about.

We’re not “any other nation in the world”. Our economy has always relied on low wage immigrants, whether from Europe or elsewhere.

kcewa on January 31, 2014 at 10:17 AM

Everyeconomy in the world relied upon low skill workers until a few decades ago. It’s clear now that Low skill labor is about to go the way of the horse drawn carriage, and everybody is beginning to understand this, except you. Every low skill worker we shed now is one that we won’t have to support until the day they die.

Has anyone EVER heard Schumer substantiate his demands for amnesty on ANY reason other than Schumer’s wants? Has any other politician done so?

The claim by the Chamber of Commerce and by some Republicans and many Democrats, that amnesty for illegal aliens will benefit our economy by providing cheap labor is hogwash.

It’s not cheap labor. It’s very expensive labor. To those who pay taxes.

Lourdes on January 31, 2014 at 9:18 AM

Exactly. The whole “cheap labor” argument hinges upon taxpayers making up the difference in social benefits. And I don’t want to hear any crap about how they don’t qualify because that’s not what happens. Pop out an anchor baby and you get all the bennies you need. Simple enough. It’s been going on for years.

It frankly amazes me that John Boehner has the stones to call his little pamphlet “principles” when it has nothing whatsoever to do with what’s best for this country and everything to do with what’s best for GOP pandering. Republicans are in this mess BECAUSE they’ve failed to stand on principles.

They’ve failed to put the country first. How does it not occur to them that expanding the labor pool at a time when wages have stagnated for decades isn’t in the best interest of Americans? It’s not even marginally believable that they don’t understand basic supply and demand, so clearly they’re acting in what they believe to be their own best interest and not ours.

Go ahead and jump if you feel froggy, GOP. You think the threat of Democrats winning seats is so scary that we’ll capitulate at the ballot box when it’s time. But on this one… YOU ARE WRONG. I’d rather see the Democrat Party get full credit for the ruination of this country than share the blame with you. I’ll find some little third-party dude and flush that vote first. Count on it.

Not doing anything also has its risks – Obama will use executive action for some fixes to the immigration system. Fixes that may be impossible to roll back down the line. For eg: Legalization of dreamers is now a certainty – no one has called for his executive action on this to be rolled back.

That executive order alone probably got him a few more percentage points in minority votes in 2012.

It is better to have a bill on our terms – with no amnesty and limited legalization for dreamers in exchange for border security, visa tracking, reform to legal immigration.

This will also allow us to fix legal immigration which is held hostage to amnesty – Legal immigrations needs to move to skills based from family based the diversity visa which is used mainly by people from Mideast and North African countries also needs to be abolished. These fixes are more than a decade overdue – but they have been hostage to the issue of Amnesty. This is the reason Dems insist on a comprehensive bill – so they can tack on Amnesty to any other reforms..

I think the idea that Conservatives are going to have forgotten being betrayed by Boehner/Ryan and the rest of the RINOs by November is laughable. The only question is whether anybody can get primary candidates up and running by November…but they’ll have good and prepped in the next election cycle.

Not doing anything also has its risks – Obama will use executive action for some fixes to the immigration system. Fixes that may be impossible to roll back down the line. For eg: Legalization of dreamers is now a certainty – no one has called for his executive action on this to be rolled back.

That executive order alone probably got him a few more percentage points in minority votes in 2012.

First, he’s going to do that regardless. Claiming we “have to do bad thing x” to prevent what is already going to happen (and should be opposed as unconstitutional, but whatever) is simply not a real argument. Executive orders can be reversed pretty easily – so this is not an argument.

It is better to have a bill on our terms – with no amnesty and limited legalization for dreamers in exchange for border security, visa tracking, reform to legal immigration.

If that was really the bill – give a few hundred thousand college kids legal status in return for those things, you’d have an argument. That is not what they are looking to do. They are talking about legal status for much, much more than that – and the reality of getting any of the alleged enforcement is laughable. We won’t get it – just like the wall wasn’t built and more enforcement did not come after the 1986 amnesty.

This will also allow us to fix legal immigration which is held hostage to amnesty – Legal immigrations needs to move to skills based from family based the diversity visa which is used mainly by people from Mideast and North African countries also needs to be abolished. These fixes are more than a decade overdue – but they have been hostage to the issue of Amnesty. This is the reason Dems insist on a comprehensive bill – so they can tack on Amnesty to any other reforms..
jdivito on January 31, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Again, while I agree that these things need to be fixed, fixing them is not worth amnesty. It is not even remotely a reasonable exchange. And – the GOP could have fixed these things at any time between 2000 – 2006 and refused to do so because the GOP wanted to tie these things to amnesty as well.

Which I think puts forth valid reasons to be suspicious that the GOP will ensure any enforcement takes place. This whole issue could have been resolved by now if the GOP wanted to resolve it in a reasonable way. The fact that they didn’t even consider doing that shows that the GOP has no intention of any true enforcement to happen.

That’s not competing. Competing requires the use of eligible players and staying within the field of play.

Cheating is the word you’re thinking of.

rogerb on January 31, 2014 at 8:58 AM

But how do we prevent what you call “cheating” without central control of the labor market and all the evils that entails?

And it still doesn’t solve the problem that certain industries will just move out of the country. If you try to prevent that costs will increase and will be passed on to consumers.

kcewa on January 31, 2014 at 9:07 AM

Central control of the labor market like we already have? We can call those “rules” if you like, and the DOL, OSHA, and EPA referees already exist as well. It helpfully ties back to competing/cheating again.

Yes, some may move. And yes, costs may increase in order for them to actually compete (vs. cheating) in the US.

***However***,

their initial choices put them in that position, and they knowingly chose to take the illegal route based on that same dollar. Whether a particular business survives a self-inflicted massive cost shock correcting an illegal action is no concern of mine.

Yes, some may move. And yes, costs may increase in order for them to actually compete (vs. cheating) in the US.

***However***,

their initial choices put them in that position, and they knowingly chose to take the illegal route based on that same dollar. Whether a particular business survives a self-inflicted massive cost shock correcting an illegal action is no concern of mine.

Fair enough. As long as we realize the costs. It’s always a matter of trade off’s.

And I hear you when you say that the rule of law is paramount. More important than questions of economics. The only caveat I would add is that going forward we do need an immigration policy that recognizes the reality of economic migration and the reality of our geography and history. Not having that is why we’re in this situation.

And I hear you when you say that the rule of law is paramount. More important than questions of economics. The only caveat I would add is that going forward we do need an immigration policy that recognizes the reality of economic migration and the reality of our geography and history. Not having that is why we’re in this situation.

kcewa on January 31, 2014 at 3:35 PM

That’s a pretty way to think about it, but the rule of law and “the reality of economic migration” of illegal aliens cannot exist in the same space simultaneously. It’s impossible. You get to pick one or the other.

No. You cannot respect a position that is founded on no rational basis and dishonesty.

If you had a rational argument based on facts for passing amnesty, that would be one thing. But we have been having this debate now for more than 10 years. And all the pro-amnesty crowd can say is:

a) your a racist if you object to amnesty;
b) we need amnesty because these are jobs Americans won’t do;
c) we have to pass amnesty because we can’t “round up” all the illegals; and
d) we have to pass amnesty because “America was founded on immigration”.

None of those are arguments. A is just the race-card. B is untrue. C is a straw-man. and D is just pablum that makes no rational sense.

No supporter of amnesty – yourself included – has made a single rational, fact-based argument for amnesty. We (supporters and opponents) have gone round and round a-d and not once has any reasonable argument been made for passing an amnesty.

You are pretending this is a tough issue with reasonable arguments on all sides. It is not. That is what is so infuriating.

Saying “we have to take into account the realities of economic migration” is meaningless. What do you mean by that? That the U.S. has some responsibility to people who want to sneak into the U.S.? that is the only thing it can mean. Otherwise, what you would say is “we have to account for the immigration that the U.S. needs for labor”. That is the only thing we have to account for when setting immigration policy.

That’s a pretty way to think about it, but the rule of law and “the reality of economic migration” of illegal aliens cannot exist in the same space simultaneously. It’s impossible. You get to pick one or the other.

Which do you choose?

rogerb on January 31, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Saying “the realities of economic migration” is a dishonest way of saying “the U.S. shouldn’t have borders because other people want to live and work here and we shouldn’t stop them.” It’s trying to dress it up as an unstoppable force that we can’t do anything about and therefore must grant legal status and citizenship.

It all flows from the same mind-set these people have that for some reason, the U.S. is not allowed to have borders or immigration laws.

That’s a pretty way to think about it, but the rule of law and “the reality of economic migration” of illegal aliens cannot exist in the same space simultaneously. It’s impossible. You get to pick one or the other.

Which do you choose?

rogerb on January 31, 2014 at 3:55 PM

By the way, we’ve long accounted for the “reality of economic migration” – it’s called border patrol, immigration laws, etc.

That those are not actually enforced is the problem.

Mexico, for instance, has a better economy than many other south American countries. So, Mexico has its own “economic migration” issues. But they actually have and enforce very strict immigration laws. As do other countries with similar issues.

Somehow, the U.S. is not allowed to do the same thing.

It all comes back to the this belief that the U.S. – alone in the world – is not allowed to have immigration laws or borders. We must accept all comers.

FWIW, I won’t respect any position that is based entirely on illegal behavior or, again, initial illegal choices that puts a business (family) in that position.

I wouldn’t expect to entertain anyone rationalizing the economic realities of drunk driving or buying cigarettes for minors, either, so it’s not solely the illegal aliens debate.

We’re not discussing morality. We’re discussing rule of law. We either have it or we don’t. There can be no either/or.

Come to think of it, that brings us back to

their initial choices put them in that position, and they knowingly chose to take the illegal route based on that same dollar. Whether a particular business survives a self-inflicted massive cost shock correcting an illegal action is no concern of mine.

There are more trolls at HA by the day. Ed and Allah must have a recruiting campaign at Kos.

bw222 on January 31, 2014 at 1:19 PM

Not all trolls. In open seasons, certain parties store up passwords, for times like these. They come in with fake personas (long time member of HA, etc) and the purpose is to prevent opinions from convening in a direction their bosses do not like.

Notice how one new poster tried to break the surge here by criticizing HA members to put them on the defensive. When the momentum of rage on the original topic was burst, the poster had done his job, and he probably went to the club with his buddies to have a few while they worked out the next strategy.

They want to stop brainstorming, stop people from comparing notes, and make the conversation tedious so the general reading public will drop off and not pick up the information being passed along.

It is a form of news control. The fact they show up tells you they are scared of the momentum. These are political sock puppets

Notice they don’t hang around conversations about movie stars, silly inventions, episodes of Walking Dead, or anything else that will not impact the job they were hired to lobby

Then there are real trolls, but not many. This site is too boring for most real trolls.